+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-13-2010
This is all very good and helpful.
Some have questioned Riothamus and his Gallic adventure as a legend on the level of him-who-must-not-be-named. Is Riothamus better supported, historically? (To add to the confusion, I seem to remember that "Riothamus"--something like "high king"--may have been his title, not his name.)
But you're right. Roman request for assistance implies anticipation of a useful response. That speaks volumes, whoever led or however many men actually went.
There once was a long, very interesting thread here about the Anglo-Saxons more assimilating the Britons than conquering them, and certainly not wiping them out. We often use the verb "pushed back" to describe the Briton remnant remaining in Cornwall and Wales, but the consensus seemed to be that most Britons stayed in place as a part of the new Saxon-dominated kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, etc.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 09-13-2010
Quote:Some have questioned Riothamus and his Gallic adventure as a legend on the level of him-who-must-not-be-named. Is Riothamus better supported, historically? (To add to the confusion, I seem to remember that "Riothamus"--something like "high king"--may have been his title, not his name.)
He is clearly historical, as we have three contemporary or near contemporary sources. We know of his expedition thanks to Jornandes and Gregorius of Tours, and Sidonius Appolinaris did wrote him a letter just a few time before or after (the chronology is not clear) he got defeated by Euric. His name came from a celtic Rigo-thamos if I'm not wrong, which can be translated as "super-king". I already mentionned his potential identification with Ambrosius Aurelianus, and he is also famous for having been identified as "him-who-must-not-be-named" by Geoffrey Ashe. At least it is very likely his continental expedition and his legacy influenced the development of the arthurian legend, but this is not the subject of the discussion.
One "Riatam" is also mentionned in the breton kinglists for continental Dumnonia. Those kinglists beeing quite late.
Here a discussion about him on the forum:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25393">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25393<!-- l
Quote:There once was a long, very interesting thread here about the Anglo-Saxons more assimilating the Britons than conquering them, and certainly not wiping them out. We often use the verb "pushed back" to describe the Briton remnant remaining in Cornwall and Wales, but the consensus seemed to be that most Britons stayed in place as a part of the new Saxon-dominated kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, etc.
That may be one of that ones:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25429">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25429<!-- l
There is also some bits about that subject lost on the precise thread you are currently reading.
At least that theory seems to be accepted by most scholars today. We have the other extreme opinion with people such as Francys Pryor suggesting there was no saxon invasion.
As often it is wise to aim for the in-between theory. There were clearly wars between Saxons and Britons, invasion and slaughters. However it is not to be forgotten the Saxons were invited in the first place by the Britons more or less as foederati. Stuart Laycock proposed it was by some of the civitates to be used as extra-muscles in the civil wars. Ken Dark has also argued the early settlement pattern of the Anglo-saxons shows they installed themselves in the borders of several civitates. It is for me clear many of those newcomers were under Brittonic command, and we do have evidence of the survival of those brittonic estates in eastern Britain into the 6th century. Anyway, the British population will slowly adopt the ways of the germanic settlers, such as they adopted roman civilisation a few centuries ago. But for the 5-7th centuries, we have a picture of a mixed civilisation in the emerging anglo-saxon kingdoms. Cerdic and Cynric of Wessex had celtic, not germanic names. The 6th century corrugated spearheads found in Wessex are derived from Latenian celtic forms. Mercia and Northumbria had a lot of diplomatic links with "celtic" kingdoms, be they Pictish, Gaelic or Brittonic. Several exemples could be added, but the overhaul picture shows something quite similar to what happened in the continent. In Gaul the Merovingian culture was a combination of the Frankish and Romano-Gallic cultures. The processus was of course different, as Frankish aristocracy was probably more romanised than Anglo-saxon aristocracy, adapting quickly to the organisation of Roman Gaul to build on a powerful kingdom. In Britain, conquest was much more slower, this had maybe both to do with the already existing fragmentation of political power when the Anglo-saxons arrived and the number of different groups within the settlers. Such a slower process also may explain why the germanic culture had more impact on the locals and why english, not latin nor brittonic, became the dominant language of Britain.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-13-2010
Yeap. Makes sense to me. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 09-13-2010
Quote: (To add to the confusion, I seem to remember that "Riothamus"--something like "high king"--may have been his title, not his name.)
This is a popssibility but if he had another "common" name such a person may have had more of a noticed history, especially considering his supposed contact with those more East than he.
My own name is of Celtic origin meaning "strong wolf" or "high & mighty" or "strong in battle" depending on the source you read. These may have been given at birth as portential much as Peter (The Rock) might be given to ensure a trait or Chastity for a girl. Alternatively they may have been "earned" in later life as below;
What might seem like a title may be a name change based on circumstances, take the Irish hero Cú Chulainn who's original name was Sétanta ( which incidentaly means White Bear in Kiowa)
<<Culann the smith invites Conchobar to a feast at his house. Before going, Conchobar goes to the playing field to watch the boys play hurling. He is so impressed by Sétanta's performance that he asks him to join him at the feast. Sétanta has a game to finish, but promises to follow the king later. But Conchobar forgets, and Culann lets loose his ferocious hound to protect his house. When Sétanta arrives, the enormous hound attacks him, but he kills it in self-defence, in one version by smashing it against a standing stone, in another by driving a sliotar (hurling ball) down its throat with his hurley. Culann is devastated by the loss of his hound, so Sétanta promises he will rear him a replacement, and until it is old enough to do the job, he himself will guard Culann's house. The druid Cathbad announces that his name henceforth will be Cú Chulainn – "Culann's Hound".>>
We have strange habits regarding names .... in the US you say Mr President like his surname name had been changed to president. I always find that a bit odd.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-13-2010
Works for me. I'm told the same it true of Vortigern. (A sly ploy to lure Robert Vermaat back into the conversation.)
(The tradition of so addressing the American President supposedly goes back to the inauguration of George Washington and the question of how to address the nation's new chief executive. "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties" seemed unrepublican. "Mister President" struck the proper egalitarian but respectful note, and followed patterns already established in England and France: Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons and Monsieur le Président in the 18th century French Parlement.)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-13-2010
Straying off topic now! Well, what do you guys think? Do the brooches and buckles prove the continued Cohort Cornovii and Dumnonii in Britain?
Later: Big News! Roman armour found in Caerleon! Dating and what kind still to be found out. Also, masked Cavalry parade helmet, also Roman, found in Cumbria
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-13-2010
That is big news. What details are available where?
Roman-style brooches and buckles dating from the sub-Roman period would be very much on topic, assuming they were used by cavalry as well as infantry. It would support the continuity side.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 09-13-2010
Quote:Straying off topic now! Well, what do you guys think? Do the brooches and buckles prove the continued Cohort Cornovii and Dumnonii in Britain?
Later: Big News! Roman armour found in Caerleon! Dating and what kind still to be found out. Also, masked Cavalry parade helmet, also Roman, found in Cumbria
Any more info on the Cumbria find at all? Not heard this elsewhere.
EDIT: Ah...now I know what you mean
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/ ... or-cumbria
Not sure that I agree entirely with how this has been a) "excavated" and be "restored" without ANY archaeological contexting done at all...and I quote "The helmet was found in more than 30 pieces, but has been restored and cleaned for sale by Christie's. Archaeologists fear clues on how it came to be buried in rough land may have been destroyed in the process."
...heigh ho, bloomin' metal detectors...
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-14-2010
Oh, that helmet. :?
It's too bad.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 09-14-2010
Quote:Works for me. I'm told the same it true of Vortigern. (A sly ploy to lure Robert Vermaat back into the conversation.)OK, that worked. Riothamus is, like Vortigern, not a title (do you know another Riothamus?) but a personal name. In fact I know of at leat 7 Vortigerns who were common people without any claim to any title. Meaningful names can be given at birth or taken as a second name upon accession (Augustus, Atatürk, Stalin). But still, no titles.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-14-2010
Conal has a point. And Robert once mentioned that some "theorist" concluded that Vortigern was Gothic like Fritigern, the guy unaware two differing languages give two dissimilar meanings: one from Vor-tigernus ("over-lord") and the other from Frith-i-gairns ("having gained faith"). I suppose there could be other meanings to the nomen Riothamos. For instance, Thamos was the father of Iris (springtime - renewal) in classical Greek, similar in Latin. So the name could have meant "Prince of Renewal" or "King of Renewal." And as Robert just mentioned above, this was not a title. My own name, Campbell, means "crooked-mouth" as in "wry-mouth," perhaps the reason I'm forever cracking bad jokes. :wink:
More important, the above posts show examples of a newer way of looking at post-Roman Britain, a Britain that was Roman for over two generations longer than the Victorians believed. The 410 date was conjecture based on a poor reading of an isolated letter. In actuality, there must have been lively correspondance between the Britons and the court of Honorius after the 409 ousting of the magistrates of Constantinus III. The Riothamus example can be further backed by Constantius of Leon, who mentions that twice Bishop Germanus interceded in broils between Ravenna and the British Armoricans. (It was during this last appeal by Germans that he died in Italy.) Likewise, archaeology has revealed that many Roman forts were still occupied well into the 5th century. If we place the Roman cavalry into this revised context, and if we believe that two or three alas remained upon the Isle after Constantine removed to the continent, then Roman horsemen had a lengthened influence upon the island's defenses.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-14-2010
And
Quote:If we place the Roman cavalry into this revised context, and if we believe that two or three alas remained upon the Isle after Constantine removed to the continent, then Roman horsemen had a lengthened influence upon the island's defenses.
And, by implication, influenced the organization, equipping and training of successor units. If the Roman "departure" was gradual, rather than abrupt, then Roman practice may have extended into the sixth century (though probably as a hybrid of Roman, tribal, and local innovations).
If we're finding artifacts Roman enough to deserve the name in strata associated with the late fifth century, that would support that supposition. (Might also explain why Gildas was so opaque: he assumed his readers were conversant with current politics and military practice and didn't feel the need to explain them. Especially since, as others have pointed out, his letter was more a sermon than a history.)
Thanks.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-16-2010
Yes, Gildas is infuriating isn't he? Oh yes, and one more thing, I have read in Christopher Gidlow's new book that a skeleton found at Stonehenge, was likely one of the Tyrants that Gildas disclaims, mainly Constantine of Dumnonia. The man was about thirty-five at his death, which would make sense, and had been executed via one clean sword chop to the neck, and burried at the place of his execution. This individual was also rather well-built, robust even. He had been in good health, and had obviously been pampered as his body showed little sign of the average wear and tear one would expect on your average warrior. The archaeologist dated him quite calmly to roughly just after Gildas wrote his sermon but others have tried to refute this date and said he was two centuries too early in his dating. They said that he was a Saxon noble who had been executed as an example to others not to mess with the ruling house. The one who originally reassesed the skeleton recently thought that he was a British king who had crossed one too many lines and was being executed by a higher power (The High King) for his crimes. The only one who matches up with place, time, rank, and misdeeds is Constantine. I believe the first assesment and would gladly like to see a reconstruction of what this man looked like. Then finally we'd have a nice substantial window into this shadowy period in time. What do you guys think? Even the unreliable Geoffrey of Manmouth agrees with this one!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-16-2010
Interesting, but as we know there's no shortage of theories about all sorts of things in that time period. Constantine, unfortunately for Gidlow's theory, seems to have a history (as unreliable and foggy as anything of that period) beyond the time of Gildas's letter, including some sort of religious experience which led him to becoming (maybe) Saint Constantine.
Is there a second source on this skeleton found at Stonehenge? Odd that it hasn't gotten the play of some of the other recent finds there. "Stonehenge" seems to be a magic work, leading to notoriety if not credibility. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 09-16-2010
It could be just any aristocrat, noble or warrior from the Bronze age to the Medieval period executed for whatever reason. What were the arguments for dating the skeleton?